Arnaud Branthomme et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 1, 20202018008366 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/158,802 05/19/2016 Arnaud BRANTHOMME 11000797.1044 1840 23280 7590 05/01/2020 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th Avenue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIMBINH T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ddk@ddkpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ARNAUD BRANTHOMME, IGOR FAIN, and PATRICK DARSES ____________________ Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,8021 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3–15, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Dassault Aviation. (Appeal Br. 2.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 19, 2016, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 18, 2017, the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed April 27, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 22, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 21, Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a method and system for “displaying information related to a flight of an aircraft” by “generat[ing] at least two successive transition synthesis images between an image according to a first type of perspective and an image according to a second type of perspective, or between an image according to a second type of perspective and an image according to a first type of perspective,” and displaying the successive transition synthesis images at successive transition moments. (Spec. ¶ 2; Abstract.) Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphases, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system destined to display information related to a flight of an aircraft, the system comprising: a dynamic synthesis image generator configured to dynamically generate synthesis images, each synthesis image comprising a depiction of the environment situated in a vicinity of a trajectory of the aircraft, the dynamic synthesis image generator being configured to generate successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images, the three-dimensional transition synthesis images including a first succession of at least two successive three- dimensional transitional synthesis images and/or a second succession of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images, the first succession of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images being generated between a three-dimensional synthesis image according to a first type of perspective and a synthesis image according to a second type of perspective, the second succession of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images being generated between a synthesis image according to a second type of perspective and a three- 2018. Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 3 dimensional synthesis image according to a first type of perspective, the dynamic synthesis image generator being configured to command the successive display of the first succession and/or the second succession of three-dimensional transition synthesis images by a display at successive transition moments, each of the three-dimensional transition synthesis images being depicted according the first type of perspective, each of the three-dimensional transition synthesis images being centered on an intermediate central point of interest, each of the three- dimensional transition synthesis images being seen from an intermediate point of view located at an intermediate observation distance from the intermediate central point of interest, each of the three-dimensional transition synthesis images being seen from an intermediate opening angle, the intermediate observation distances of the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the first succession being an increasing function of the transition moments at which the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the first succession are displayed, and the intermediate opening angles of the successive three- dimensional transition synthesis images of the first succession being a decreasing function of the transition moments at which the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the first succession are displayed, the intermediate observation distances of the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the second succession being a decreasing function of the transition moments at which the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the second succession are displayed, and the intermediate opening angles of the successive three- dimensional transition synthesis images of the second succession being an increasing function of the transition moments at which the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the second succession are displayed, Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 4 wherein there exists at least one first and one second successive transition moments, the second transition moment being after the first transition moment, such that: the intermediate observation distance of a first three- dimensional transition synthesis image of the first succession destined to be displayed at the first transition moment is strictly less than the intermediate observation distance of a second three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the first succession destined to be displayed at the second transition moment, and the intermediate opening angle of the first three- dimensional transition synthesis image of the first succession is strictly larger than the intermediate opening angle of the second three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the first succession, the intermediate observation distance of a first three- dimensional transition synthesis image of the second succession destined to be displayed at the first transition moment is strictly greater than the intermediate observation distance of a second three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the second succession destined to be displayed at the second transition moment, and the intermediate opening angle of the first three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the second succession is strictly smaller than the intermediate opening angle of the second three-dimensional transition synthesis image of the second succession. (Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims App.) (emphases added).)3 REJECTIONS & REFERENCES (1) Claims 1, 3, and 7–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Buratto et al. (US 2013/0249712 A1, published Sept. 26, 2013) 3 The first page of Appellant’s Claim Appendix is not numbered, while the second page of Appellant’s Claim Appendix is numbered as page 2. We count the pages of Appellant’s Claim Appendix continuing from the numbered page 18 of Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 5 (“Buratto”) and Morizet et al. (US 2004/0225420 A1, published Nov. 11, 2004) (“Morizet”). (Final Act. 2–18.) (2) Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Buratto, Morizet, and Wenger et al. (US 8,344,911 B1, issued Jan. 1, 2013) (“Wenger”). (Final Act. 18–20.) ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 6–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends Buratto and Morizet do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations indicated supra. (Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–3.)4 With respect to Buratto, Appellant argues it does not mention “modifying the observation distance in any manner, or an opening angle,” and does not mention “a correlation between (1) an increase of the intermediate observation distances and a decrease of the intermediate opening angle for successive transition images or (2) a decrease of the intermediate observation distances and an increase of the intermediate opening angle for successive transition images.” (Appeal Br. 10–11.) Appellant concludes that Buratto does not disclose “increasing the intermediate observation distances for successive transition images while decreasing the intermediate opening angle in the manner recited in claim 1” or “decreasing the intermediate observation distances for successive transition images while increasing the intermediate opening angle in the manner recited in claim 1.” (Id.) We do not agree with Appellant. 4 We count the pages of the Reply Brief (which are not numbered) starting from the first page. Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 6 We agree with the Examiner that Buratto’s dynamic transition from a plan view (horizontal section viewed from above, as shown in Figure 3 of Buratto) to a perspective view (with image data from at least two plan views, as shown in Figure 8) via one or more intermediate views (such as those shown in Figures 4–7), teaches “a first succession of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images” of first and second perspective types, as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 3–4 (citing Buratto ¶¶ 28–29, 33, 86–90, 121–126, 172–175, Figs. 3–8).) We agree because Appellant’s Specification similarly describes perspective types (of synthesis images) that include a horizontal projection view (as shown in Figure 3) and a conical view (as shown in Figure 2). (See Spec. ¶¶ 42 (“The first type of perspective is preferably a conical perspective, i.e., with a vanishing point”), 48 (“synthesis images according to the second type of perspective are for example images seen from an axonometric perspective . . . [s]uch a perspective is also called cylindrical, orthographic, parallel or orthonormal perspective”), 49–50 (“An example of a synthesis image 39a according to the second type of perspective, in horizontal projection, i.e., seen from above, is illustrated in Figure 3”).) We additionally note, since Appellant’s claim 1 does not provide specific details for the “first type of perspective” and “second type of perspective,” Buratto’s transition from a perspective view (e.g., Figure 8) to a plan view (Figure 3) via intermediate views may equally teach a “first succession of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images” between an image according to a first type of perspective and an image according to a second type of perspective, as recited in claim 1. Additionally, Buratto’s reverse dynamic transition from a perspective Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 7 view (e.g., Figure 8) to a plan view (Figure 3) teaches “a second succession of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images” of second and first perspective types, as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 3–4; see Buratto ¶ 90 (describing a dynamic transition from a perspective view to a plan view).) And, since Appellant’s claim 1 does not provide specific details for the “first type of perspective” and “second type of perspective,” Buratto’s transition from a plan view (e.g., Figure 3) to a perspective view (Figure 8) via intermediate views may equally teach “a second succession of at least two successive three-dimensional transitional synthesis images” between an image according to a second type of perspective and an image according to a first type of perspective, as recited in claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner that Buratto’s dynamic transitions between plan and perspective views, or perspective and plan views, via successive geometric transformations including rotational and translational transformations, teach or at least suggest increasing intermediate observation distances for successive transition images while decreasing the intermediate opening angles, and decreasing intermediate observation distances for successive transition images while increasing the intermediate opening angles, as required by claim 1. (Ans. 3–4 (citing Buratto ¶¶ 25, 27– 29, 62–64); Final Act. 4–6 (citing Buratto ¶¶ 121–125, 172–175).) At the outset, we note that the broadly claimed decrease (or increase) of intermediate opening angles with an increase (or decrease) of intermediate observation distances for successive transition images reads on the known mathematical relationship of inverse proportionality between solid angle (Ω) and distance (r) to a field of view/object subtending the solid Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 8 angle.5 According to this mathematical relationship, the solid angle subtended by a given object (e.g., subtended by a field of view of a given area) is inversely proportional to the distance between the object and the apex/origin of the solid angle (i.e., the point from which the object/field of view is viewed). Because Buratto transitions from a plan view (Figure 3) to a perspective view (Figure 8, showing substantially the same airspace area as Figure 3, but from a different vantage point) by rotational and translational geometric transformations (see Ans. 3–4), we find a skilled artisan would recognize that a distance (parameter r, mentioned supra) from the vantage point to the imaged airspace area may change between Buratto’s Figure 3 and Figure 8 (e.g., be larger or smaller for Figure 8 than it is for Figure 3). (See Buratto ¶¶ 37–39, 130, 172–174.) Such change in distance would effect an inversely proportional change in the solid angles (Ω) subtended by Figures 3 and 8, thereby either: (i) decreasing the intermediate opening angles (solid angles subtended by the airspace area in Figures 3 and 8) between Figure 3 and Figure 8 (i.e., claim 1’s angles being “a decreasing function of the transition moments” at which Buratto’s Figures 3 and 8 are displayed), while increasing intermediate observation distances (distances from the vantage point to the imaged airspace) between Figure 3 and Figure 8 (i.e., claim 1’s distances being “an increasing function of the transition 5 See, e.g., Wolfram MathWorld, describing “[t]he solid angle Ω subtended by a surface S is defined as the surface area Ω of a unit sphere covered by the surface’s projection onto the sphere,” the solid angle Ω being “Ω ≡ ∫∫S ( ·da)/(r2), where is a unit vector from the origin, da is the differential area of a surface patch, and r is the distance from the origin to the patch.” (See https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SolidAngle.html (last accessed Apr. 24, 2020).) Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 9 moments” at which Figures 3 and 8 are displayed); or (ii) vice versa—that is, decreasing the intermediate observation distances while increasing the intermediate opening angles from Figure 3 to Figure 8, as required by claim 1. The above-mentioned increasing (or decreasing) of intermediate observation distances while decreasing (or increasing) the intermediate opening angles/solid angles from Figure 3 to Figure 8 in Buratto also indicates that Figure 3’s intermediate observation distance “is strictly less” (or “strictly greater,” as recited in claim 1) than Figure 8’s intermediate observation distance. Additionally, decreasing (or increasing) intermediate opening angles/solid angles with increasing (or decreasing) intermediate observation distances from Figure 3 to Figure 8 in Buratto also indicates that Figure 3’s intermediate opening angle “is strictly larger” (or “strictly smaller,” as claimed) than Figure 8’s intermediate opening angle, as required by claim 1. Figure 3’s intermediate opening angle being “strictly larger” (or “strictly smaller,” as recited in claim 1) than Figure 8’s intermediate opening angle (as discussed supra) also indicates that intermediate opening angles are “a strictly decreasing function of the transition moment[s]” between Figure 3 and Figure 8 of Buratto (or “a strictly increasing function of the transition moment[s],” in a reverse transition), as recited in dependent claim 6 separately argued by Appellant. (Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 6.) That is, since claim 6 does not specify details of the claimed “strictly decreasing function” and “strictly increasing function,” the “strictly decreasing function” (and “strictly increasing function”) reads on a decrease (or increase) between two values (of angles, as discussed supra). Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 10 Thus, Buratto’s transitions from a plan view (e.g., Figure 3) to a perspective view (Figure 8), and vice versa, suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1 indicated above. Buratto’s transitions from a plan view (e.g., Figure 3) to a perspective view (Figure 8) and vice versa, also suggest the “strictly decreasing function” and “strictly increasing function” limitations recited in claim 6. Therefore, for all the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1, independent claim 13 for which Appellant provides the same arguments, and dependent claim 6. Appeal Br. 8, 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3, 7–12, 14, and 15 not separately argued. Appeal Br. 13. Rejection of Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the dynamic synthesis image generator is configured to determine the intermediate observation distances of the successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images of the first and/or second succession according to a nonlinear function of the transition moments at which the three-dimensional transition synthesis images are displayed.” (Appeal Br. 21 (Claim 4).) The Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 cites to “generating non-linearly space graduations for a symbolic linear scale of Wenger” and “a non-linear function of the transition according to Buratto.” (Final Act. 18 (citing Wenger 6:1–7:67, Figs. 3A–3B); Ans. 7–8 (citing Buratto ¶¶ 162–169, Fig. 3).) Appellant contends the cited art does not teach the feature of claim 4 requiring determination of intermediate observation distances of the Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 11 successive three-dimensional transition synthesis images “according to a nonlinear function of the transition moments at which the three- dimensional transition synthesis images are displayed.” (Appeal Br. 14) (underlining omitted.) We agree with Appellant. The cited portions of Wenger generate non-linearly spaced graduations for a spatial scale that reduces spatial distortion of objects viewed in perspective projection, thus not teaching a nonlinear function of moments at which synthesis images are displayed (as recited in claim 4). (Appeal Br. 14; see Wenger 1:39–55, 6:1– 7:67, Figs. 3A–3B.) The cited portions of Buratto teach details of a plane’s flight path, which does not support the Examiner’s finding of “a non-linear function of the transition” in Buratto. (See Ans. 7 (emphasis added); Buratto ¶¶ 162–169.) Although Buratto teaches and suggests claim 1’s “increasing function of the transition moments” and “decreasing function of the transition moments” (as discussed supra with respect to claim 1), we do not find that Buratto discloses determining intermediate observation distances according to a nonlinear function of the transition moments (as claim 4 requires). As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of claim 4, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 dependent from claim 4 and further requiring “the nonlinear function [determining the intermediate observation distances]” to be “a convex function.” DECISION SUMMARY The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2018-008366 Application 15/158,802 12 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 7–15 103 Buratto, Morizet 1, 3, 7–15 4–6 103 Buratto, Morizet, Wenger 6 4, 5 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 6–15 4, 5 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation